"It gives us a really broad coverage of the law, as well as the specialist areas we have to deal with: contracting, procurement, employment law, governance. I've found some fairly obscure case law on LexisLibrary, very quickly."
Walsall Council
Access all documents on Justification
A defence used in defamation claims that a defamatory statement is 'substantially' true 鈥 the 'sting' of the allegation must be proven, and minor factual errors will not necessarily deprive the defendant of the defence but to be successful, the statement鈥檚 factual content must be proven true as well as the interpretation which may be understood of it, and any supporting innuendo.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business鈥揳ll whilst saving time and reducing risk.
For our full legal glossary and more legal research sources, register for a free Lexis+ trial
Instructing third parties鈥攃hecklist鈥攍aw firms This Checklist is designed to help you determine whether you have the systems in place to comply with regulatory requirements that apply to law firms in relation to instructing third parties. It should be read in conjunction with subtopic:聽Instructing third parties. Selecting and evaluating third parties Requirement Compulsory or recommended Comments (if any) 鈽惵 Implement systems and procedures to select and evaluate third parties you instruct on clients鈥 behalf See Precedents: Instructing third parties policy, Third parties register and Third party evaluation form Compulsory for Lexcel accredited firms, otherwise recommended Lexcel England and Wales v6.1: Standard for legal practices, para 7.5 (Insert any comments you may wish to make regarding your firm鈥檚 arrangements) 鈽惵 Implement systems and procedures to: 鈥攃onsult with your client in relation to the selection of the expert or barrister, where appropriate鈥攁dvise your client of:鈥 the name and status of the person being instructed 鈥 if the client will have to fund the disbursement, the...
Allotment of shares and disapplication of pre-emption rights鈥攑rivate companies with more than one class of shares and public unlisted companies鈥攃hecklist The Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) governs the allotment of shares and the disapplication of pre-emption rights. The rules differ according to the type of company which is proposing the allotment (private or public, listed or unlisted) and whether that company has a single or multiple classes of shares. Additional rules apply to listed companies or AIM companies. This Checklist sets out the procedure relating to the allotment of shares and the disapplication of statutory pre-emption rights for private companies with more than one class of shares and public unlisted companies. For general information on allotment and issue by, and pre-emption rights as they apply to, all companies, see Practice Notes: Allotment and issue of shares鈥攊ntroductory points and Pre-emption rights鈥攇eneral issues. For further and more detailed information about allotments of shares and pre-emption rights in relation to private companies with only more than one class of shares and public unlisted...
Discover our 15 Checklists on Justification
Economic tort of unlawful interference As set out in The economic torts鈥攐verview, the law makes provision to protect a person鈥檚 trade or business from acts which are considered to be unacceptable. For guidance on claims for: 鈥 procuring a breach of contract, see Practice Note: The tort of procuring a breach of contract 鈥 intentional violation of rights in a judgment debt, see Practice Note: The Marex tort (interference with a judgment debt) 鈥 conspiracy (both by lawful and unlawful means), see Practice Note: Civil conspiracy claims (economic tort) 鈥 economic duress, see Practice Note: Economic duress鈥攗ndue influence鈥攖ort of intimidation 鈥 intentional violation with the claimant鈥檚 rights in a judgment debt, see Practice Note: The Marex tort (interference with a judgment debt) Civil claims involving fraud and dishonesty often rely on pleading one or more of the economic torts, on which see Practice Note: Civil fraud鈥攃auses of action (heads of claim). What is the tort of unlawful interference? Causing loss by unlawful means exists where the defendant interferes with...
E&W Brussels I (recast)鈥攖he harmful event for specific tort and delict claims (art 7(2)) [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the requirement for a harmful event to enable a court to have special jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). It then considers what is a harmful event when considering specific types of claims: economic loss, damaged or defective goods, personal injury claims, intellectual property claims, actions for inducing breach of contract as well as other types of claims. For guidance on the general principles that apply when dealing with tort and delict claims under the regulation, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)鈥攖ort and delict claims (art 7(2)) [Archived]. For guidance when dealing with contract claims under the regulation, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)鈥攃ontract claims (art 7(1)) [Archived]. Impact of UK鈥檚 departure from the EU Following exit day (ie 31 January 2020), the UK became a third state in respect...
Discover our 507 Practice Notes on Justification
ET3 grounds for resisting claim 鈥 indirect age discrimination [Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3:] 1 It is admitted that the Respondent operates a criterion or practice whereby it expects applicants for jobs in the [specify department] to demonstrate at interview a reasonable proficiency in computing skills. 2 It is accepted that this requirement puts persons in the Claimant鈥檚 age group [over 60] at a particular disadvantage compared with those under the age of [40]. It is further accepted that it disadvantaged the Claimant who, at interview for the [specify position], showed that he had no computing skills at all, and
ET3 grounds for resisting claim鈥攔eligion or belief: direct or indirect discrimination, harassment [Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3:] 1 Paragraph 1 of the Grounds of Claim is admitted. 2 It is admitted that on or about [insert date], the Respondent announced the introduction of a new rolling shift system which would require all poultry processors to work on Sunday one week in every four and that the Claimant objected to the new system on the basis that she attends religious services every Sunday. It is admitted that the Respondent has implemented the new shift system. 3 The new shift system was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Respondent had to introduce Sunday working in order to ensure that its poultry business remained profitable and to avoid closing down that part of its operations. A questionnaire circulated amongst employees on or about [insert date] revealed that very few wanted to volunteer for Sunday shifts for a variety of reasons including family and other...
Dive into our 32 Precedents related to Justification
In a set of standard terms and conditions, on what grounds could a payment to a supplier on termination of a contract be challenged? The termination payment is payable regardless of the reason for termination, even in the event of the repudiatory breach of the supplier. In answering this question, it has been assumed that you are referring to a standard form B2B contract. It is important to note that the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977) does not apply to international supply contracts. Hence, for the purposes of this answer, it has been assumed that the contract is not of this nature. Challenge on basis of whether such payment is a penalty Parties will sometimes seek to agree in their contract what sums should be payable upon breach of a particular term or several terms. Where they do so, whether such a clause will be enforceable will depend on whether the courts construe it as: 鈥 a liquidated damages clause (enforceable), or 鈥 a penalty...
Can an employer pay its staff different rates of employer pension contributions, increasing with age? General rules relating to direct age discrimination Under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) a person directly discriminates against another person where: 鈥 he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others, and 鈥 he does so because of a protected characteristic Where the protected characteristic in issue is age, an employer can defend a claim of direct discrimination if he can show that the treatment is justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Under EqA 2010, s 61, a 鈥榥on-discrimination rule鈥 applies in respect of occupational pension schemes, whereby a responsible person (which can include an employer whose employees are, or may be, members of the scheme) must not, amongst other things, in carrying out his functions in relation to the scheme, discriminate against another person. Special exceptions relating to pension schemes There are, however, various exceptions with regard to the non-discrimination rule,...
See the 111 Q&As about Justification
This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including Saxon Woods Investments Ltd v Costa (Court of Appeal unfair prejudice decision), The New Lottery Company Ltd v The Gambling Commission (appropriate security for costs applicants), Vietjet Aviation Joint Stock Company v FW Aviation (limits of appellate jurisdiction) and discussion of the potential impact of AI-driven fake evidence in litigation; dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.
This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes commentary on the justification for continuing injunctions against unknown persons in car-cruising nuisances cases, the granting of possession orders and injunctions to Cambridge Colleges in response to disruptive protests, clarification from the Upper Tribunal of the definition of 鈥榩erson managing鈥 an HMO under the Housing Act 2004, and the second reading of the Right to Manage and Leasehold Bill in the House of Commons.
Read the latest 195 News articles on Justification
**Trials are provided to all 老司机午夜福利 content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these 老司机午夜福利 services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
0330 161 1234